New Covenant Baptist

[Afshin Yaghtin]

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus.

I wanted to introduce myself here. We have a small church in Spokane, WA. And post my sermons on our youtube channel or on our website @ NewCovenantBaptist.org.

My general views are: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, through His once-and-for-all blood atonement, Once Saved Always Saved, and KJV Only.

God bless you all,
Afshin
New Covenant Baptist

 

[kyredneck]

Welcome to the Baptists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_denominations

 

[Yeshua1]

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus.

I wanted to introduce myself here. We have a small church in Spokane, WA. And post my sermons on our youtube channel or on our website @ NewCovenantBaptist.org.

My general views are: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, through His once-and-for-all blood atonement, Once Saved Always Saved, and KJV Only.

God bless you all,
Afshin
New Covenant Baptist

New Covenant as in holding to Covenant theology?

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

Thanks for the question. I don't hold to any particular formal theological system. But I can explain my doctrines individually, such as salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and once saved always saved as key, fundamental key doctrines.

Perhaps you can educate me on what covenant theology in particular is?

If it has to do with the old vs. new covenant, I do believe that Jesus fulfilled the old covenant in Himself, being God made flesh and perfect and sinless as both fully God and man, and that our ultimate authority and understanding of the Scriptures ought to be rooted in the New Testament, which was initiated by the shedding of His blood. However, I do hold that the Old Covenant is good for doctrine, and learning and understanding when understood correctly in light of the new covenant.

 

[kyredneck]

perhaps you can educate me.....

Age of the internet search engine, self education at your fingertips.

covenant theology
https://www.google.com/search?site=...le-gws-hp..0.18.839.3..41j0i131k1.XNOyTDISIr4

 

[Internet Theologian]

Welcome to BB. Who taught you to become KJVO?

Concerning your statement 'I don't hold to any particular formal theological system' actually you do hold to one discipline or another as there are no theological mavericks. Typically it is either Arminian or Calvinistic, or Anti-Calvinistic, one of those camps.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

Welcome to BB. Who taught you to become KJVO?

Concerning your statement 'I don't hold to any particular formal theological system' actually you do hold to one discipline or another as there are no theological mavericks. Typically it is either Arminian or Calvinistic, or Anti-Calvinistic, one of those camps.

If you were to examine all of my doctrines, you could probably find a theological framework which fits me best, but it is unlikely that I would fit 100% into any one single camp, since no theological system understands the Bible perfectly. This is why I prefer to examine my doctrine individually, based on the merits of God's Word.

I am not Calvinist, but I am not Arminian, as Arminiasm likely holds to many views that I reject. I am not Calvinist, in that I believe we have freewill to receive or reject Christ, and that we are only elect and predestined based on God's foreknowledge, rather than His imposed will.

That is why I believe the Calvinistic vs. Arminian argument is a false dichotomy, kind of like "Which do you like better, 'Pepsi or Coke?'" I would choose neither, as I don't drink soda.

I do believe that Christ fulfilled the old covenant in Himself, and is the mediator of a new covenant. In that sense, I am a "new covenant" believer.

Hope this clarifies. God bless.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

If you were to examine all of my doctrines, you could probably find a theological framework which fits me best, but it is unlikely that I would fit 100% into any one single camp, since no theological system understands the Bible perfectly. This is why I prefer to examine my doctrine individually, based on the merits of God's Word.

I am not Calvinist, but I am not Arminian, as Arminiasm likely holds to many views that I reject. I am not Calvinist, in that I believe we have freewill to receive or reject Christ, and that we are only elect and predestined based on God's foreknowledge, rather than His imposed will.

That is why I believe the Calvinistic vs. Arminian argument is a false dichotomy, kind of like "Which do you like better, 'Pepsi or Coke?'" I would choose neither, as I don't drink soda.

I do believe that Christ fulfilled the old covenant in Himself, as is the mediator of a new covenant. In that sense, I am a "new covenant" believer.

Hope this clarifies. God bless.

ps. I forgot to answer your question about who made me KJV-only. I believe God led me to this, through the help of a pastor that I now disagree with vehemently on numerous issues, named Steven Anderson. I want myself far removed from him, as he falls deeply into numerous hateful teachings and legalistic behavior uncomely of the Saints of God.

 

[Internet Theologian]

If you were to examine all of my doctrines, you could probably find a theological framework which fits me best, but it is unlikely that I would fit 100% into any one single camp, since no theological system understands the Bible perfectly. This is why I prefer to examine my doctrine individually, based on the merits of God's Word.

I am not Calvinist, but I am not Arminian, as Arminiasm likely holds to many views that I reject. I am not Calvinist, in that I believe we have freewill to receive or reject Christ, and that we are only elect and predestined based on God's foreknowledge, rather than His imposed will.

That is why I believe the Calvinistic vs. Arminian argument is a false dichotomy, kind of like "Which do you like better, 'Pepsi or Coke?'" I would choose neither, as I don't drink soda.

I do believe that Christ fulfilled the old covenant in Himself, as is the mediator of a new covenant. In that sense, I am a "new covenant" believer.

Hope this clarifies. God bless.

I see, thanks for the response. When we begin to hash out our theological framework, no matter the medium, we all show we lean toward one camp or the other. This is why I stated there are no theological mavericks, cultic preachers/teachers aside.

Welcome to BB brother.

 

[Internet Theologian]

ps. I forgot to answer your question about who made me KJV-only. I believe God led me to this, through the help of a pastor that I now disagree with vehemently on numerous issues, named Steven Anderson. I want myself far removed from him, as he falls deeply into numerous hateful teachings and legalistic behavior uncomely of the Saints of God.

Interesting. I am happy you've distanced yourself from his influence. May God continue to enlighten your understanding, Ephesians 1:17.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

Thanks for the welcome. God bless!

 

[TCassidy]

Interesting. I am happy you've distanced yourself from his influence. May God continue to enlighten your understanding, Ephesians 1:17.

I agree. It is good he has distanced himself from Anderson, but it would be better if he also distanced himself from Anderson's KJVO heresy.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

Steven Anderson has many heresies. I agree. But if you are not KJVO, what are you? Do you believe the ESV or NASB and other versions are just as accurate and valid?

 

[TCassidy]

Steven Anderson has many heresies. I agree. But if you are not KJVO, what are you? Do you believe the ESV or NASB and other versions are just as accurate and valid?

I believe the bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved word of God. I believe the bible is without error of fact.

I believe the KJV is an excellent translation of the Greek traditional text manuscripts Erasmus had in his possession when he redacted 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, and 817 into his TR.

I believe some of the modern versions are good to excellent translations of the Greek text that underlie those versions.

I believe some of the modern versions are good to excellent translations of the Greek TR, Majority Text, and Byzantine Texts now available.

Any bible that is able to "make thee wise unto salvation" is, according to the bible, "the Holy Scriptures."

After 60 years of study I have come to the conclusion the Byzantine Textform is most likely to correctly reflect the original manuscripts and is, therefore, my final authority.

But there is absolutely no biblical reason to establish the KJV as the perfect baseline to which all others are compared. There is not a single verse in the KJV which says "the KJV is the only/best/accurate/valid English bible" (or words to that effect).

KJVOism assumes a thesis (The KJV is best) which then becomes the conclusion (the KJV is best). That is called circular reasoning. It simply says "The KJV is best because the KJV is best."

I would have to ask you, on what professional expertise and on what evidence do you claim superiority for the KJV? What criteria do you offer to support your assumption?

My personal preference is a bible translated from the Byzantine textform.

I preach from my KJV, which I have had for over 40 years, made extensive notes in the margins, and had rebound 3 times (and it is falling apart again).

I teach from the NKJV which is a pretty good modernization of the KJV.

In my reading and study I also use the WEB bible and the EMTV. Both based on the Traditional/Majority text.

But my "Final Authority" is the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Byzantine Greek text of the New Testament.

My pastor (I am now retired from active ministry) preaches from the ESV, which is not a favorite of mine for two reasons. First it is based on the Alexandrian Textform. Second it is a revision of the RSV which was the work of Modernists and most Evangelicals my age (70) rejected it back in the 50s due to its obvious liberal bias. However, the ESV, even though a revision of the RSV, was done by a group of conservative scholars who corrected the liberal bias of the RSV in their translation.

So, again I ask, what evidence do you offer to support your contention that the KJV is the only accurate and valid version in English?

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

I agree with you that the he Byzantine Text is the accurate one, which is what the KJV is ultimately based on. Practically speaking, there is no other modern version that is based on the Majority Text or Erasmus' TR. The modern versions bring in the corrupt Alexandrian texts which have roots in Roman Catholicism. That is why I reject the modern versions. I know of no modern Bible that doesn't in some ways contradict the Byzantine texts. I also believe in the preservation of God's Word, so that by His providence, he has preserved His Word in the KJV. I don't see that same providence at work in the ESV for example or the NIV, which are poor versions of His Word with errors and contradictions. I haven't found any errors in the KJV. So practically speaking, as far as the English translations available, the KJV appears to be the only one that is inerrant.

If I could read Greek or Hebrew, I would not be opposed to studying the original tongues, but I am not, so for me as an English speaker, the KJV is the only real option.

 

[Internet Theologian]

. I also believe in the preservation of God's Word, so that by His providence, he has preserved His Word in the KJV.

That is a logical fallacy brother. The phrase 'I believe in the preservation of God's Word' does not equal 'He has preserved His Word in the KJV'. That is a false conclusion and unsubstantiated assumption laden with the implication that all other versions are then false. The implication is based upon your position of KJVO.

Now, I believe God has preserved His Word, and I believe the ESV, KJV, NASB and other good translations are versions that do this.

I don't see that same providence at work in the ESV for example or the NIV,

Can you tell me how you actually see His providence? You're implying you saw providence at work in the translation of the KJV, and, with all due respect that just isn't true, it is all a hunch, an assumption.

which are poor versions of His Word with errors and contradictions.

Please substantiate the reasons with facts that make these versions poor. Also, since you are making these bold yet unsubstantiated claims, show us where these versions contradict as well as their alleged errors. Please do so without using the KJV as the comparison.

I haven't found any errors in the KJV.

Which KJV? There are many variances, and they don't all speak word for word. Oxford/Cambridge for instance. Which one of those is 'The Word of God' and which one is not, since they have differences?

So practically speaking, as far as the English translations available, the KJV appears to be the only one that is inerrant.

That's not practically speaking, it's all based on a hunch, feeling, assumption.

If I could read Greek or Hebrew, I would not be opposed to studying the original tongues, but I am not, so for me as an English speaker, the KJV is the only real option.

I employ several versions. I hope you come to where you can do the same and leave the KJVO myths and fables in the past.

 

[TCassidy]

I agree with you that the he Byzantine Text is the accurate one, which is what the KJV is ultimately based on.

No, the KJV is not based on the Byzantine Text. It is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which was a revision of the Great Bible, which was a revision of the Tyndale Bible which was based on the TR of Erasmus.

Practically speaking, there is no other modern version that is based on the Majority Text or Erasmus' TR.

The EMTV (English Majority Text Version) is based on the Majority Text (which should be obvious by the title). The WEB is based on the Majority Text. The NKJV is based on the TR.

The modern versions bring in the corrupt Alexandrian texts which have roots in Roman Catholicism.

Uh, no, their roots are not in Roman Catholicism. The Church of Rome uses the Latin Vulgate. The primary source of the modern Critical Texts are the two Uncials, Aleph and B, which date to 350 and 325 AD, long before the inception of the Roman Catholic Church.

I know of no modern Bible that doesn't in some ways contradict the Byzantine texts.

The KJV contradicts the Byzantine Text in several hundred places.

I also believe in the preservation of God's Word, so that by His providence, he has preserved His Word in the KJV.

Failure of logic. There is a disconnect between God preserving His word, and preserving his work only in the KJV.

So practically speaking, as far as the English translations available, the KJV appears to be the only one that is inerrant.

Which KJV? There are over 1,000 differences between the 1611 and the 1769 editions. And those are changes of substance, not just correction of errors or changes in spelling.

If I could read Greek or Hebrew, I would not be opposed to studying the original tongues, but I am not, so for me as an English speaker, the KJV is the only real option.

The KJV is not the only real option. Even if you want to stick to Byzantine or TR based bibles you could still use the WEB or EMTV, and for a TR based bible the NKJV follows it slavishly.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

I'm not an expert in Greek or Hebrew, so I can only make comparisons between the KJV and later versions and examine the logical and historical arguments surrounding this debate. There are clear differences between the KJV and modern versions, and so three possibilities present themselves, if we are to hold to the position of inerrancy of God's Word and God's ability to preserve His Word in the translations throughout the ages.

1. The KJV is 100% accurate.
2. The NASB / ESV / NIV etc. are 100% accurate.
3. None are 100% accurate, and only the missing autographs are infallible; therefore, God has not preserved His Word.

In other words, the KJV and the modern versions cannot all be right, because they contradict one another in numerous areas.

The only 4th logical possibility would be that God has confusingly decided to preserve His Word buffet-style in all of the modern translations combined and it is up to us to try to figure out which passages are correct in each of the numerous modern Bible translations that are available. But God is not a God of confusion, so I didn't even list this 4th possibility above.

I've only been KJVO for about 3 years, so I am still learning all of the issues surrounding this, but my understanding so far is that the underlying manuscripts surrounding the KJV were built upon the same Majority Text manuscripts & the TR as the previous English Bibles, like the Tyndale, Wycliff, Geneva, Bishop's Bible, etc. All of these were present during the KJV translation and the KJV built upon these, which is why all agree with one another in scope and content.

But then after the KJV, in the 1800s, the Westcott/Hort edition used the minority, corrupt Alexandrian text and gave them preference over the Majority Text and the TR in many cases. This led to the Nestle Aland edition which the modern versions are based on. As such, there are real differences between these underlying manuscripts, such as the KJV saying that we "are saved" vs. the moderns saying we are "being saved", making salvation a process rather than an instant at the moment of genuine belief (1 Cor 15:2).

Btw: there were Jesuits sitting on the Nestle Aland committee which produced the underlying texts for the modern versions. That should be suspect in and of itself. You should check out the documentary, "A Lamp in the Dark" free on youtube. It explains the Roman Catholic connection to the modern manuscripts.

This is my understanding so far. I realize I need to continue to study to make my knowledge of this issue more accurate. So I welcome corrections in my historical knowledge of the debate, as I am still learning. I used to read the KJV or the NKJV before I became KJVO. I never could get myself to take the NIV seriously (although I read it for a few years) and I never could get myself to stick with the NASB, as all the majesty of God's Word was stripped from it. I tried to read the ESV when it came out and I was excited about it, but was quickly disappointed by the translation, especially it's butchering of Psalm 23 and other passages.

I also don't believe you have to be KJVO to be saved, as I've been saved 23 years and was not KJV only the first 20 years, although it was my preferred version.

I welcome your response. God bless.
Afshin

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

Which KJV? There are over 1,000 differences between the 1611 and the 1769 editions. And those are changes of substance, not just correction of errors or changes in spelling.

What substantial changes are there between the 1611 and 1769? I've been led to believe these are only typographical and font changes, not actual changes in the content. Can you list one major difference between the 1611 and 1769?

 

[TCassidy]

I've been led to believe these are only typographical and font changes, not actual changes in the content.

Whoever led you to believe that lied to you and is not trustworthy.

What substantial changes are there between the 1611 and 1769?

Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord” - changed "even" for "of."

2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD” - added "of the LORD."

Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD” - changed "God" for "LORD."

Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces” - changed gender of pronoun from neuter to feminine

Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may” - changed number of pronoun.

Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe” - changed gender of pronoun.

Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall” - changed pronoun.

1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments” - changed gift from gift to two separate gifts.

1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath” - added "of God."

Can you list one major difference between the 1611 and 1769?

See above.